*****

Obama's Nuclear Power Breakthrough

The same critics remain, but their arguments have been proven wrong or become outdated.

By WILLIAM TUCKER

President Obama's announcement last week that the federal government will support new nuclear reactors through loan guarantees has reinvigorated the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen and other opponents of nuclear energy. Their objections to this proven technology-which already generates about 20% of our electricity-have barely changed since the 1970s. But most of their arguments have either been proven wrong or become outdated. Here's a rundown:

• Nuclear isn't safe. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident-in which a faulty cooling valve led to a meltdown without injuring anyone-occurred when computer technology had barely penetrated the U.S. industry. In the 1970s, each reactor was an island unto itself. Industry officials barely communicated. The valve that failed at Three Mile Island had failed nine times previously, yet nobody said a thing about it.

Today, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, first adopted in 1957 and amended several times since, each of America's 104 reactors is now on the hook for $100 million in damages for an accident at another reactor ($10 billion coverage in all). You can bet they talk to each other. Accidental "scrams" and safety outages have been reduced to nearly zero. Our entire fleet is up and running 90% of the time. That's why, even though nuclear constitutes only 11% of generating capacity, it provides 20% of electricity.

• Nuclear is too expensive. Building a 1,500-megawatt reactor will cost around $5 billion, which seems expensive until you compare it to everything else. The equivalent capacity in wind power would easily cost $4 billion because you have to build 4,000 windmills at $1 million apiece plus hundreds of miles of transmission lines and an almost equal capacity of natural gas generators to back them up when the wind doesn't blow.

Building zero-emissions coal plants that capture the carbon dioxide and bury it underground will probably cost more, but nobody really knows because it's never been done. Only natural gas is cheaper to build, but that's because 95% of the cost is in the fuel. (With nuclear it's only 26%.) Natural gas prices fluctuate. Would anyone care to predict what the price of natural gas will be in 25 years?

• A hijacked jet liner crashing into a reactor would cause a nuclear holocaust. Go to YouTube and search "plane crashing into wall." You'll see a video of an F-4 fighter jet hitting a concrete containment wall at 500 miles per hour. The plane simply disappears. The wall barely budges. Nuclear opponents argue that a jumbo jet would have a greater impact, but the laws of physics say it would be about the same. A jet is a hollow metal tube. Even at the speed of a bullet (700 mph) it could not penetrate a concrete containment wall.

• We haven't figured out what to do with the waste. Basically, there is no such thing as nuclear waste. The reason we have the controversy over the Yucca Mountain storage facility is because we gave up fuel reprocessing in the 1970s. Reprocessing reduces the volume of spent fuel-already remarkably small-by 97%. The French reprocess and store all their high-level waste from 30 years of producing 70% of their electricity beneath the floor of one room in their La Hague plant.

• We can't reprocess because that will lead to nuclear proliferation. The conceit of the 1970s was that if we isolated plutonium in an American reprocessing plant, some foreign terrorist would steal it to make a bomb. Half a dozen countries have since built nuclear bombs, none of them with stolen American plutonium. North Korea built its own reactor. Iran has been enriching uranium. France, Japan and Russia all reprocess and no one has stolen their plutonium. Reprocessing American fuel has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation.

• The nuclear revival is being forced on America by the powerful nuclear industry. There is no American "nuclear industry." Westinghouse is now owned by Toshiba. Areva is French. GE partners with Hitachi but is running in last place. Only three of the 33 proposed American reactors are GE designs. The biggest new international competitor is South Korea, which just won a $20 billion contract to build four reactors in the United Arab Emirates. China is building four Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, even though its design has not yet been approved by our Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When the first new reactors are built here, 70% of the parts will come from abroad.

We've essentially fallen 10 years behind the rest of the world in nuclear technology, but the Obama administration's decision to support nuclear will finally get the ball rolling. Within a decade we may very well catch up with the rest of the world in developing the energy technology of the 21st century.

Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey," published in October.

There is no logical relationship between what you state---not many nuclear plants going online in 2009--and whether nuclear energy is cost efficient. It's a total non sequitur. You know that. Western Europe hasn't had a nuclear plant in a decade....because of anti-nuke sentiment, not because of cost issues, as you vaguely hint at.

Nuclear plants going online now were authorized a decade or more ago, when Europe was in its most aggressive anti-nuclear funk. Nuclear still represents 34 percent of EU energy capacity and 16 percent of the world. It already has a balanced energy supply market. But 12 European countries have no nuclear, the result of the anti-nuclear legacy in the West that the Journal opinion piece was trying to stir a reasonable discussion about

France has a plant scheduled to be online in 2012. Finland's plant is set for 2011. But Germany and Sweden remain adamantly anti-nuclear. The only new plants actually being built, outside of the French and Finnish plants, are in the Soviet bloc (Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia). Russia is building seven new plants, and it has tremendous carbon reserves--they're betting on the future. When Finland's finally comes on line, we could easily see the dam break in Europe and nuclear be embraced.

For more on public support of nuclear (mostly in the U.S. context), NPR just did a nice story yesterday featuring environmental sociologist Gene Rosa on the research on public attitudes and risk perception re: nuclear.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124205435

 

Regards,

 

Rachael Shwom

 

Assistant Professor, Climate and Society

http://humeco.rutgers.edu/facultypages/shwombio.html

Rutgers University

Department of Human Ecology

732-932-9153  x416 (P)

732-932-8887 (F)

 

 

 

 

Rolf:

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rolf Wuestenhagen <rolf.wuestenhagen@unisg.ch> wrote:

There is one section in this article that says it all:

"Building a 1,500-megawatt reactor will cost around $5 billion, which seems expensive until you compare it to everything else. The equivalent capacity in wind power would easily cost $4 billion (...)"

Perhaps that is the "secret" that explains why of all new power generation capacity built in Europe in 2009, 39 % was wind and 2 % was nuclear (gas: 26 %, solar: 16%). Why not build the cheaper option if you have a choice... Oh, and by the way, what's not included in this comparison is that the fuel comes for free in the case of wind turbines, whereas that shiny $5 bn nuclear plant does not generate a single kilowatthour unless you send a little cheque to your uranium supplier every once in a while.

Great things coming from Wall Street recently...

Cheers,

Rolf



********************************************************

Prof. Dr. Rolf Wüstenhagen
Good Energies Professor for Management of Renewable Energies
University of St. Gallen
Director, Institute for Economy and the Environment (IWÖ-HSG)
Tigerbergstrasse 2
CH-9000 St. Gallen
Switzerland

Tel. +41-71-224 25 87
Fax +41-71-224 27 22

http://goodenergies.iwoe.unisg.ch

mailto:rolf.wuestenhagen@unisg.ch
Mobile +41-76-306 43 13

***********************************************************

Erfolgreich wachsen mit Sonne, Wind & Co.
1. St. Galler Forum für Management Erneuerbarer Energien
11./12. März 2010, Einstein Congress Hotel, St. Gallen
http://forum.iwoe.unisg.ch

***********************************************************

Jon Entine <jon@JONENTINE.COM> Gesendet von: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> 01.03.2010 17:27 Bitte antworten an Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion              <ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>

An ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU Kopie Thema nuclear energy--any comments??

In the light of the recent exchange over nuclear energy, this opinion piece appeared in the WSJ last Friday If anyone has the background to dissect his arguments, particularly on cost and the dangers of nuclear energy waste/reprocessing, which I would think is his 'weakest' argument, it would help us all.

Jon Entine | 513.319.8388

www.ESGMediaMetrics.com
www.JonEntine.com

*****
FEBRUARY 26, 2010, 10:56 P.M. ET
Obama's Nuclear Power Breakthrough
The same critics remain, but their arguments have been proven wrong or become outdated.
By WILLIAM TUCKER

President Obama's announcement last week that the federal government will support new nuclear reactors through loan guarantees has reinvigorated the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen and other opponents of nuclear energy. Their objections to this proven technology-which already generates about 20% of our electricity-have barely changed since the 1970s. But most of their arguments have either been proven wrong or become outdated. Here's a rundown:

• Nuclear isn't safe. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident-in which a faulty cooling valve led to a meltdown without injuring anyone-occurred when computer technology had barely penetrated the U.S. industry. In the 1970s, each reactor was an island unto itself. Industry officials barely communicated. The valve that failed at Three Mile Island had failed nine times previously, yet nobody said a thing about it.

Today, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act, first adopted in 1957 and amended several times since, each of America's 104 reactors is now on the hook for $100 million in damages for an accident at another reactor ($10 billion coverage in all). You can bet they talk to each other. Accidental "scrams" and safety outages have been reduced to nearly zero. Our entire fleet is up and running 90% of the time. That's why, even though nuclear constitutes only 11% of generating capacity, it provides 20% of electricity.

• Nuclear is too expensive. Building a 1,500-megawatt reactor will cost around $5 billion, which seems expensive until you compare it to everything else. The equivalent capacity in wind power would easily cost $4 billion because you have to build 4,000 windmills at $1 million apiece plus hundreds of miles of transmission lines and an almost equal capacity of natural gas generators to back them up when the wind doesn't blow.

Building zero-emissions coal plants that capture the carbon dioxide and bury it underground will probably cost more, but nobody really knows because it's never been done. Only natural gas is cheaper to build, but that's because 95% of the cost is in the fuel. (With nuclear it's only 26%.) Natural gas prices fluctuate. Would anyone care to predict what the price of natural gas will be in 25 years?

• A hijacked jet liner crashing into a reactor would cause a nuclear holocaust. Go to YouTube and search "plane crashing into wall." You'll see a video of an F-4 fighter jet hitting a concrete containment wall at 500 miles per hour. The plane simply disappears. The wall barely budges. Nuclear opponents argue that a jumbo jet would have a greater impact, but the laws of physics say it would be about the same. A jet is a hollow metal tube. Even at the speed of a bullet (700 mph) it could not penetrate a concrete containment wall.

• We haven't figured out what to do with the waste. Basically, there is no such thing as nuclear waste. The reason we have the controversy over the Yucca Mountain storage facility is because we gave up fuel reprocessing in the 1970s. Reprocessing reduces the volume of spent fuel-already remarkably small-by 97%. The French reprocess and store all their high-level waste from 30 years of producing 70% of their electricity beneath the floor of one room in their La Hague plant.

• We can't reprocess because that will lead to nuclear proliferation. The conceit of the 1970s was that if we isolated plutonium in an American reprocessing plant, some foreign terrorist would steal it to make a bomb. Half a dozen countries have since built nuclear bombs, none of them with stolen American plutonium. North Korea built its own reactor. Iran has been enriching uranium. France, Japan and Russia all reprocess and no one has stolen their plutonium. Reprocessing American fuel has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation.

• The nuclear revival is being forced on America by the powerful nuclear industry. There is no American "nuclear industry." Westinghouse is now owned by Toshiba. Areva is French. GE partners with Hitachi but is running in last place. Only three of the 33 proposed American reactors are GE designs. The biggest new international competitor is South Korea, which just won a $20 billion contract to build four reactors in the United Arab Emirates. China is building four Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, even though its design has not yet been approved by our Nuclear Regulatory Commission. When the first new reactors are built here, 70% of the parts will come from abroad.

We've essentially fallen 10 years behind the rest of the world in nuclear technology, but the Obama administration's decision to support nuclear will finally get the ball rolling. Within a decade we may very well catch up with the rest of the world in developing the energy technology of the 21st century.

Mr. Tucker is author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey," published in October.